The Delhi High Court allowed a mother to travel to the US with her minor son to pursue postgraduate studies. The Court emphasized her Right to Life under Article 21, stating she cannot be denied education for personal growth.
The Delhi High Court granted a mother permission to travel to the United States with her minor son to pursue a postgraduate degree, highlighting that a mother’s fundamental right to personal growth should not be hindered by existing custody arrangements.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee, remarked that while the child’s welfare is crucial, it should be considered alongside the mother’s rights to personal development and autonomy.
The Court asserted that refusing the mother permission to further her education would constitute an impermissible intrusion into her Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
ALSO READ: Child Custody Laws in India: Legal Rights of Parents| Explained
This case revolves around a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner-mother and the respondent-father, who were married in 2014 and have a son born in 2017.
Following their separation in May 2019, the child has lived with the mother.
The litigation history includes a Family Court ruling from January 2023 that granted the father visitation rights, later modified by the High Court.
In July 2024, the mother traveled to the USA with the child to begin her Master’s program at Marymount University, Virginia, without prior court approval.
This led the father to file a Habeas Corpus petition (Vishal Verma vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.). A Supreme Court order in August 2025 permitted the mother to seek court approval for travel, leading to her application to the High Court.
Represented by Dr. Swati Jindal Garg, the mother claimed admission to the “Public Health Education and Promotion (M.S.)” program at Marymount University from August 2024 to August 2027.
She argued that this education would enhance her career and financial stability, ultimately benefiting her child. Dr. Garg emphasized the mother’s previous high GPA and family sacrifices to fund her education.
Referencing the Supreme Court decision in Vivek Singh vs. Romani Singh, she argued that as a natural guardian, the mother’s presence is essential for the child’s overall growth.
According to Vikram Vir Vohra vs. Shalini Bhalla, a mother should not have to choose between her child and professional growth. She also committed to getting the child enrolled in a school in Arlington, Virginia.
Mr. Udit Gupta, representing the father, argued against the petition, stating it was an attempt to undermine his visitation rights and alienate the child. He maintained that the child’s welfare should not be subordinated to the mother’s career goals, citing cases like Rosy Jacob vs. Jacob A.
Chakramakkal and Shilpa Aggarwal vs. Aviral Mittal to argue that relocating the child abroad would uproot him from his stable environment in India and undermine the court’s jurisdiction.
He expressed concerns that the mother might not return, permanently depriving the father of access to his son.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee deliberated on the dual aspects of the “welfare of the minor child and the mother’s fundamental right to personal development.”
The Court observed that the Right to Life under Article 21 includes the right to personal growth and the freedom to make significant life choices.
The Judge stated,
“The fact that a mother is the primary caregiver and responsible for the upbringing of a child cannot be a ground to compel her to surrender her right to education, personal growth, and/or self-advancement. On the contrary, enabling a mother to pursue higher education strengthens her dignity, economic independence, and overall well-being… and, in turn, equips her to provide a more secure, stable, and nurturing environment for the child.”
The Court noted that the mother’s choice to study abroad was a “bona fide and reasoned life choice,” which should not be restricted unless harm to the child is demonstrated. It recognized the mother’s academic success as evidence of her ability to balance both roles effectively.
Addressing the father’s concerns, the Court found his worries about the child’s displacement unpersuasive, as children often travel with parents pursuing opportunities abroad.
Regarding the possibility of the mother not returning, the Court highlighted her compliance with past court directives, establishing her good faith.
Drawing from the Supreme Court’s decision in Vikram Vir Vohra, the High Court reiterated,
“Every individual, like the mother herein, is entitled to realise his or her full potential, and a mother cannot be compelled to make an invidious choice between her child and her career.”
The High Court approved the mother’s request, allowing her to travel to the USA with her son to complete her postgraduate program.
To safeguard the father’s rights, the Court mandated strict conditions to be included in the mother’s Affidavit of Undertaking:
- No Relocation: She must provide her residential address in the USA and notify the court before relocating.
- Virtual Visitation: The father is entitled to video call access for 30 minutes on Saturdays and Sundays, and 10-15 minutes on Wednesdays.
- Physical Visitation in India: The mother must ensure the child’s availability in Delhi for two months during summer vacations and ten days during winter vacations. During these times, the father will be allowed physical meetings twice a week for four hours and overnight visits on weekends.
- Return to India: The mother must return to India after completing her degree and is prohibited from taking any new job or course abroad.
The Court also directed the mother to submit proof of financial support, including her father’s Income Tax Returns. The order will be communicated to the FRRO and the Bureau of Immigration to facilitate their travel.
Case Title: Smt. Twinkle Vinayak v. Sh. Vishal Verma
Read Attachment